President Obama will probably not attend the U.N. conference on climate change in December because it is not a "head of state"
event, but may use his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize as a platform to address climate change issues.

The current thinking in the administration is that since the
conference is not a "head of state" event, Obama will not attend. Obama
will be accepting the Nobel Prize in Oslo on the second day of the
Copenhagen conference and may use that platform to address climate
change issues.

On
big reason the Copenhagen conference is not a "head of state" event is
because of the slow progress of climate change legislation in the U.S.
Senate. Absent Senate passage of a climate change bill mandating a
cap-and-trade system, Obama will have nothing to bring to Copenhagen as
part of a U.S.-led effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a factor
likely to undermine global efforts to curb those emissions.

Negotiations with India and China on setting and enforcing carbon
pollution limits have become bogged down, complicating global efforts
to produce a successor treaty to the Kyoto Pact the U.S. never ratified.

Who will replace the US as leader of the free world? Who steps up to the plate? My money is on Israel.The world is waking up to how good it was under Bush ..............and they ain't seen nothing yet.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is reportedly growing increasingly
frustrated with the Obama administration. A Reuters analysis piece says Sarkozy
is shifting his focus from the U.S. to other international allies.

Didier Billion of the Institute of International & Strategic Relations
says: "Sarkozy has clearly been thrown off course in his relations with
America." Another foreign affairs expert, Bruno Tertrais from the Foundation for
Strategic Research, adds: "There is an annoyance about what the French see as
naivety in the Obama administration."

One major sticking point has been President Obama's softer stance on Iran,
while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last
month: "I support America's outstretched hand. But what has the international
community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched
uranium and centrifuges."

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate, which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educate the public about the myth of global warming.

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in
St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former
science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and
lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures
which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of
global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic
climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be
available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify
immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well
prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than
health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused
attention.

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed.
Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it,
because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing
regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign
it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a
world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears
as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the
transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in
satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been
burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they
haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is
enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or
“democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that
treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who
piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over
Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the
communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They
are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a
president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to
sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll
sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that
it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get
agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest
paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So,
thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a
privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But,
in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your
freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any
subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it
back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this
stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going
to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here,
here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that
perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and
fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from
signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem
with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help]
it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill
addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in
the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on,
O Ship of State!Sail on, O Union, strong and great!Humanity with all its
fears,With all the hopes of future years,Is hanging breathless on thy
fate!

------------------------------------- End of Speech
-----------Some questions for Lord Monckton-----

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from
members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to
the forthcoming Copenhagen
treaty:

Question: The current
administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard
for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda,
and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be
little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I
see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his
agenda and he’ll do it.

Response: I don’t minimize the
difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not
right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to
get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to
go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to
demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell
him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy
people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If
they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully
enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not
so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their
democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no
scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this.
Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change],
you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as
that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty
is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I
– I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president
there because I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir,
yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential
illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty
that he does sign as president?

Response: I would be
very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount
of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very
difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able
to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not
he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies
it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White
House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds
majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to
ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and
they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know
about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple
majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you
have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight,
and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new]
Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to
push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal
it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused
to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to
tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to
constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves
if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively
undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our
imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If
American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is
irrelevant.

Verifying the treaty clauses Mockton made reference
to:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of
Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for
the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and
the basic organization of which will include the following:

World
Government (heading added)(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with
the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board
responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative
processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such,
as appropriate.

I urge all Atlas readers immediately to contact your congressman NOW AND DEMAND that they do the job they were elected to do, keep America safe and protect her from her enemies, even if that enemy is in the White House.

Despite repeated warnings to "Say No to Koh", Harold Koh was confirmed. This is a dark day. American sovereignty, R.I.P. Say no to Koh? With a vote of 62-35, we didn't even say maybe. This is an indication that so few knew what was at stake, and once again the media abdicated its role of public servant, not Obama's slave.

The future of American jurisprudence hung in the very balance. Koh opposes national self-interest. He is dogged and
determined to advance his views. He believes traditional
sovereignty is obsolete. He has written critically of the very notion
American exceptionalism.

Yale
Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed as the State Department Legal Advisor
in a roll call vote, 62-35.

We needed 51 votes.

Koh was tapped for the job nearly four months
ago, but has faced criticism from some conservatives for an alleged
"transnational" approach to the law. But ranking Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) threw his support to
Koh, in a statement Thursday: "After reading his answers to dozens of
questions, attending his hearing in its entirety, meeting with him privately,
and reviewing his writings, I believe that Dean Koh is unquestionably qualified
to assume the post for which he is nominated."

ACTION ALERT! SAVE AMERICA! PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION! TIME IS WASTING! This is a very dangerous appointment. The future of American jurisprudence hangs in the very balance. Put this on your daily things to do. Koh must go. Read this post carefully and send it to everyone you know.

WE MUST PROTECT AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY!

I took part in a conference call with Andy McCarthy and Ed Whelan -- and sponsored by Erick Erickson of RedState.com, Hugh Hewitt and others -- to discuss the nomination of Yale Law School Dean and transnationalist Harold Koh to be the legal adviser at the State Department.
I have blogged on Koh here.

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations'
legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United
States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and
Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's
top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law
School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would
forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms
control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and
the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But
that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the
distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

[..]

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we
reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the
age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues
ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the
rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven
Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed
that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law
would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Koh is a post American transnationalist. American jurisprudence is based on national sovereignty. Self determination on national security, whereas Koh would abdicate this to a new world order. Opposing Koh is not an attack on his integrity or his fine legal
mind. You can oppose someone on policy. Oppose Koh on his beliefs.

In a series of posts on National Review Online's Bench Memos blog that
earned prominent attention, EPPC President Ed Whelan exposed the
radical transnationalist views of controversial State Department legal
adviser nominee Harold Koh. Immediately below is the outline of the
series, which is available in full here.

His nomination is out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He will go before the Senate in June. You must contact your Senators. GO HERE. Be polite but firm. One good reason is far more effective than ten insults. There is a wealth of documentation and evidence here.

KOH HAS MET WITH LITTLE RESISTANCE, EVEN FROM REPUBLICANS. WAKE UP YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.This is madness.

Koh opposes national self-interest. He is dogged and determination to advancing his views. He believes traditional sovereignty is obsolete. He has written critically of the very notion American exceptionalism.

Obama Begins Turnover of USA Sovereignty to International Body!
by Sher Zieve Moving as quickly as he can to
gut the USA and then divide its body parts amongst like-minded globalists, the
USA’s Supreme Leader Barack Hussein Obama used the G-20 conference to begin his
turnover of USA sovereignty to said internationalists and start the move toward
a one-world government.

Obamahas signed off
on international legislation the-Financial StabilityBoard-that would regulate ALL firms,
including those within the USA and places them under the responsibility
of an international governmentalagency.

OnFNC’s Greta Van Susteren’sprogram, author and columnist Dick Morrisnoted "literally from April 2nd of thisyear, thatis today,
it’sawhole new world of financial regulation in
which,essentially, ALLof the U.S. regulatory
bodies and ALL U.S. companies are putunderinternational regulation, international supervision.
Itreally amounts to a global economicgovernment."Called the Financial
Stability Board (FSB), the pending international body’s legislation—which will
of course override the US Constitution—states: “We agree to a framework of
internationally agreed upon high standards. We will set up a financial stability
board with a strengthened mandate to extend regulation and oversight to all
systemically important financial institutions, instruments and
markets”—including hedge funds, all—anything that they decide is important to
the system—to endorse and implement tough new principles on paying (ph)
compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate
social responsibility of ALL firms.” The international community will now be
able to determine the salaries and compensation of us all.

During this
same conference, Obama officially announced the reduction in US nuclear
weaponry, so that Iran will be more amenable to sitting down to talk with the
US. In other words, he’s again announced to the world that the USA is no longer
a threat to anyone—let alone terrorists. Never before in our soon to be
short-lived history has the United States of America had this sort of a leader
who has now announced—in no uncertain terms—that it is his plan and duty to
dismantle and destroy the country he represents. He, his administration members
and his Congress (with extraordinary assistance from most notably Barney Frank
and Christopher Dodd and their friends) have devastated the US economy, are in
the process of eliminating the First and Second Amendments—and the entire US
Constitution—have ended free enterprise, established his national youth
indoctrination—if not police—force (via the GIVE—Generations Invigorating
Volunteerism and Education—Act) and have begun the process of taking over
virtually all private companies.

Bolton proves his sagacity once again - Obama's announcement of notorious transnationalist Harold Koh as his nominee for State Department legal adviser had not yet happened, but Obama's contempt for American hegemony is no secret. Koh is just the tip of the iceberg; he believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here. (More on Koh here.)

Barack Obama’s nascent presidency has brought forth the customary flood of
policy proposals from the great and good, all hoping to influence his
administration. One noteworthy offering is a short report with a distinguished
provenance entitled A Plan for Action,1 which features a revealingly immodest subtitle: A
New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and
Beyond.

In presentation and tone, A Plan for Action is determinedly
uncontroversial; indeed, it looks and reads more like a corporate brochure than
a foreign-policy paper. The text is the work of three academics—Bruce Jones of
NYU, Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, and Stephen John Stedman of
Stanford. Its findings and recommendations, they claim, rose from a series of
meetings with foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including former
Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the
Clinton and first Bush administrations. The participation of these notables is
what gives A Plan for Action its bona fides, though one should doubt
how much the document actually reflects their ideas. There is no question,
however, that the ideas advanced in A Plan for Action have become
mainstays in the liberal vision of the future of American foreign policy.

That is what makes A Plan for Action especially interesting, and
especially worrisome. If it is what it appears to be—a blueprint for the Obama
administration’s effort to construct a foreign policy different from George W.
Bush’s—then the nation’s governing elite is in the process of taking a sharp,
indeed radical, turn away from the principles and practices of representative
self-government that have been at the core of the American experiment since the
nation’s founding. The pivot point is a shifting understanding of American
sovereignty.

[...]

To this end, the authors provide a brief for what they call “responsible
sovereignty.” They define it as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations
and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens,” and they
believe that its application can form the basis for a “cooperative international
order.” At first glance, the phrase “responsible sovereignty” may seem
unremarkable, given the paucity of advocates for “irresponsible sovereignty.”
But despite the Plan’s mainstream provenance, the conception is a
dramatic overhaul of sovereignty itself.

“Global leaders,” the Plan insists, “increasingly recognize that
alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national
security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must
therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects
unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to
an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient
in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the
realities of a now transnational world.” This “rule-based international system”
will create the conditions for “global governance.”

The Plan suggests that the transition to this new system must begin
immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration.

[...]

Diplomacy is a tool, not a policy. It is a technique, not an end in itself.
Urging, however earnestly, that we “engage” with our enemies tells us nothing
about what happens after concluding the initial pleasantries at the negotiating
table. Just opening the conversation is often significant, especially for those
who are legitimized merely by being present. But without more, the meaning and
potency of the photo op will quickly fade.

That is why effective diplomacy must be one aspect of a larger strategic
spectrum that includes ugly and public confrontations. Without the threat of
painful sanctions, harsh condemnations, and even the use of force, diplomacy
risks becoming a sucker’s game, in which one side will sit forever in naïve hope
of reaching a settlement while the other side acts at will.

Diplomacy is an end in itself in A Plan for Action. So, too, is
multilateralism. The multilateralism the Plan celebrates and advocates
is, of course, set in sharp contrast to the portrait it draws of a Bush
administration flush with unilateralist cowboys intent on overturning existing
international treaties and institutions just for the sport of it. Defining
unilateralism is straightforward: the word refers to a state acting on its own
in international affairs.2 It is a critical conceptual mistake, however, to pose
“multilateralism” simply as its opposite.

On top of that, this Obama pick believes that "America's focus on the War on
Terror [is] 'obsessive.'" And his list of countries that flagrantly disregard
international law highlights North Korea, Iraq, and the U.S.A. -- which he
collectively calls "the axis of disobedience."

"Obama's most perilous legal pick," by Meghan Clyne for the New York Post

Will the people not rise up? Do they even know this is happening?

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations'
legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United
States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and
Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's
top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law
School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would
forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms
control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and
the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But
that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the
distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have
overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh
would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which,
in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human
Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal --
well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's
voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death
penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we
reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the
age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues
ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the
rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven
Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed
that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law
would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I
had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that
Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among
the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal
concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero
for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he
listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most
prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States
of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience.[...]

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the
"judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single
GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as
you like.

Good segment: John Bolton's appearance on Glenn Beck discussing world government (though the Orwellians don't call it that anymore, instead they talk about "global governance" - same diff), supranational currency and the abdication of American self rule, and the leftopaths' new oxymoron: "responsible sovereignty". Bolton 2012! (Make that 2010!)

Why doesn't he just hand over the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to Ahmadinejad? President Hussein is dismantling every tool, every weapon in our defense arsenal.

This should be splashed on the front page of every soon-to-be-dead news daily. The insanity is explained by AG Holder this way: in developing new policy to govern Islamic terrorists, it is essential we "operate in a manner consistent with our values".

Well, let me state this plainly: this is not consistent with our values. This has no value. There is right and there is wrong. There good and there is evil. There are allies and there are enemies. These are American values. Abdicating our sovereignty to an international Islamic code is suicidal. Who is writing this international law, the OIC?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration dropped the term "enemy combatant" and incorporated international law on Friday as its basis for holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department said it had filed court papers outlining its break from Bush administration detention standards, and said only those who provided "substantial" support to al Qaeda or the Taliban would be considered detainable.

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

"The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

They think the American people are complete idiot sheeples.

Instead, the Justice Department said, "It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress.

"It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase 'enemy combatant.'"

It said it had told the court that the Obama administration was reviewing its entire detention policy -- as part of its plan to close the prison at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- and further refinements of the policies were possible.

How many of the released Gitmo detainees rejoined the Islamic armies of al qaeda and taleban? We are so screwed.

Can you imagine? This insufferable megalomaniac is transparent to all. He is surrendering but wants to put a happy face on it. Obama was raised a Muslim, he knows there is no "moderate" Islam for the pious. And the Taliban are very pious.

The reverbs of this incompetent traitorous fool will be felt in spades.

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical
U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to reach out to moderate elements of the
insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending
the war.

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times, expressed an openness to
adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to
moderate elements there.

"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari
Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters
when asked if its top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar would make any comment about
Obama's proposal.

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know
why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

This is Islamic supremacism. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is bent on imposing Islam on the free world. They are singular in their purpose, barbaric in their goal. Before they can go for the jugular, freedom of speech must silenced. The UN is an Islamic organization -- we should not be there. We should belong to a union of democratic nations. President Hussein intends to move closer to the rat-house. President Hussein intends to turn over huge chunks of American sovereignty to the Muslims.

"The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat
Defamation of Religion," Dobbs said in the report. "The U.N. now wants to make
that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course,
our own. That would make it a crime in the United States ... to criticize
religion, in particular, Islam."

Constitutional lawyer
Floyd Abrams said in the report, "What they would do would be to make it illegal
to put out a movie or write a book or a poem that somebody could say was
defamatory of Islam."

Prick up your ears. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a bad idea. Very bad for America. Buying into this latest bit of international fascism. Abandoning our national sovereignty to UN warlords? You're kidding right?

On October 1962, President Kennedy ordered the U.S. Navy to prevent foreign
ships from reaching Cuba unless they submitted to U.S. inspections on the high
seas to verify that they were not transporting missiles or other offensive
weapons to the island. Similar measures had been adopted in wartime blockades,
but the Kennedy administration, not wanting to acknowledge a state of war with
Cuba, termed this intervention a "quarantine."

It was a soothing term in the midst of a confrontation which threatened to
trigger a catastrophic nuclear exchange. So the Kennedy administration did not
let itself worry that its "quarantine" did not happen to correspond with any
recognized practice in international law.

If a similar crisis should arise today, the Bush administration seems to
think we could rely on an international tribunal to determine whether U.S.
actions were or were not legally valid.

[...]

In the 1980s, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as
Libyan territorial waters and demanded that foreign ships obtain Libyan
permission before entering this broad bay on the Mediterranean coast. Since the
mouth of the bay is 300 miles wide, it was not very plausible, under generally
recognized principles of international law, to claim that all the enclosed
waters were Libyan territorial seas. But Libya could have claimed authority to
enforce conservation standards in an "exclusive economic zone" covering the
whole Gulf of Sidra.

Rather than argue the fine points at length, President Reagan sent a carrier
task force into these waters in 1986 to prove that they were open to
international navigation, without prior permission. The task force opened fire
on Libyan patrol boats which tried to resist its intervention. Two of the Libyan
boats were sunk, with the loss of all hands.

Today, the Bush administration seems to think we could avoid such
unpleasantness by relegating all such disputes to the determination of an
international tribunal.

[...]

In the past, writers on international law acknowledged that states could not
be expected to submit the most sensitive political questions--those most vital
to national security--to international arbitration. Most of the world seems to
have abandoned this view, but most nations no longer make great efforts to
provide for their own defense. So, even as the United States has substantially
reduced the scale of its naval forces, since the peak years of the Reagan
build-up we have acquired a larger and larger share of the world's naval
capacity. Others have shrunk their forces further and faster.

In past centuries, rules about the conduct of ships at sea emerged from
agreements among major naval powers, and there were always a number of naval
powers engaged in challenging, enforcing, and accommodating agreed-upon
standards. Now, when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a
majority of the world's naval capacity, we are told that our security requires
us to participate with 150 other states in electing international judges to
determine, in the last analysis, what rules our Navy must accept.

To find this convincing, one must be awed by the moral authority of the U.N.
majority. To think that way means that we seek consensus at almost any price.
Why do we claim to be independent, why do we invest so many billions in defense
capacities, if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus,
articulated (and -readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should think
long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N version of the Law
of the Sea.